In researching my paper on CJPA (linked below), I heard loud and clear that so many interventions such as this are designed for legacy media and end up excluding much Black, Latino, community, and start-up media. I heard that many of them do not have full-time employees but instead depend on freelancers and founders' sweat equity. You're right that implementation will determine much, including whether (as with CJPA) disinforamtion, exremist, or pink slime sites might benefit.
Thanks for reading and for this, Jeff. I do think that content neutrality is essential in any government subsidy of the press. That should help in some of the ways about which you are concerned-- it makes it impossible to exclude the ethnic press per se, for instance. But it also means that what you would consider "extremist" or possibly "pink slime" sites may be among the beneficiaries, as such things have long been of, for instance, the postal subsidy for print publications. In my own view, that trade-off is worth it to preserve journalistic independence.
Doesn't that mean, then, that clear guidance is needed before granting such status? I think some principles-based framework is always needed. We just can't ignore the "values in public life" piece — a civic moral version of the AP Stylebook!
Do you mean non-profit status? The statute applies to both for-profit and non-profit. If you mean including outlets within the definition of the press (here the statute uses "newspaper"), I would be against that. It would amount to government licensing of the press. Preventing that was one of the key goals of the First Amendment.
I hear you, but there's always a civic moral impact on society, be it via "for-profit" or "nonprofit" enterprise. It's an "externality" in economist lingo. Folks are understandably leery of introducing the civic moral dimension, as we've become so atomized + relativistic in our discourse that we've forgotten fundamental truths we hold to be self-evident. We've left it to judges and courts to discern what's 'right and wrong," even though law and ethics are not always compatible. I believe firmly we can identify core principles that are subject to application, across business categories (have worked decades on this, including affecting the news industry. Did a big project on this at Harvard Divinity School in the mid-90s looking at the spiritual values of CEOs in the news media, Hollywood, and Wall Street.)
"Free speech" as we know is not a license to do anything; Justices Holmes and Stewart wrestled with these questions in different eras. The press contributes to the public interest, rightly understood. Time to focus on that as a governing principle (Newt Minow would agree), and then wrestle with what that means and how it's enhanced. At Harvard, I was part of the Center for Values in Public Life, now non-existent, that addressed these questions from a variety of perspectives. We discovered most folks crave greater knowledge + capability regarding values in public life, but lack the vocabulary, usable knowledge, and outlets for doing achieving said fluency.
BTW, I'm working on a major project to leverage money from portfolios of wealthy tax-exempt institutions toward this cause (among others). The Equity Culture / Civic Fiduciary Action Lab model, initially planted in Boston + Watertown along with Lansing / East Lansing, MI (I'm from Lansing; my mom was a journo just after WWII), aims to mobilize massive pools of financial capital toward public interest outcomes. Would welcome your thoughts as I move forward.
As a matter of right and wrong-- civics and morals-- I think I largely agree with you. But as a matter of law, I don't want the press defined so narrowly. In that realm, I continue to believe that content neutrality is essential.
Insofar as gov't funding is concerned, I hear you.
But what if there were big pools of $$$ fed by rich tax-exempt institutions? Their charter / license to operate is to "advance the public interest," although that's never really defined. The idea of "civic fiduciary obligation" is one that can be anchored in new interpretations of "fiduciary duty and care", akin to work now going on amongst legal scholars regarding the "public fiduciary." Alas, our current interpretations of fiduciary obligation fail to incorporate this public interest obligation — wherein the "beneficiaries" are the general public, not the extant institution. That's cutting edge work, to which I welcome your participation.
The problem with including digital-only outlets is Uncle Phil can put an HTML shingle out and claim to be a journalist. At least running a printing press creates some barrier to entry. In any case, this will help small in-state weekly chains the most.
Thanks, Dick, for the early take on this novel action. Like Jeff, I worry that the news outlets — of which there are many — that rely on freelancers because they do not have the money for staff positions, will be excluded, which seems contrary to the intent of this subsidy. Also, what, to the extent that you may have insight into this, does the regulatory process look like — will the larger legacy organizations such as newspaper trade groups be sending their lobbyists into the EDC, which presumably knows little about the industry? How do the smaller newsrooms get a chance to explain and advocate for themselves?
Thanks, Barbara. On your first point, the statute is quite clear that this is aid to offset salaries, not freelance costs. Any change on that would need to go back to the Legislature.
On the second point, I am sure that there is going to be significant lobbying just ahead-- it's probably already begun. Folks need to get organized for that if they are not already.
A lot of questions about implementation. Thanks!
Dick,
In researching my paper on CJPA (linked below), I heard loud and clear that so many interventions such as this are designed for legacy media and end up excluding much Black, Latino, community, and start-up media. I heard that many of them do not have full-time employees but instead depend on freelancers and founders' sweat equity. You're right that implementation will determine much, including whether (as with CJPA) disinforamtion, exremist, or pink slime sites might benefit.
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1mJYxDwrSgIDjKVzUQlKRZG_I7hxq5OAT
Thanks for reading and for this, Jeff. I do think that content neutrality is essential in any government subsidy of the press. That should help in some of the ways about which you are concerned-- it makes it impossible to exclude the ethnic press per se, for instance. But it also means that what you would consider "extremist" or possibly "pink slime" sites may be among the beneficiaries, as such things have long been of, for instance, the postal subsidy for print publications. In my own view, that trade-off is worth it to preserve journalistic independence.
Doesn't that mean, then, that clear guidance is needed before granting such status? I think some principles-based framework is always needed. We just can't ignore the "values in public life" piece — a civic moral version of the AP Stylebook!
Do you mean non-profit status? The statute applies to both for-profit and non-profit. If you mean including outlets within the definition of the press (here the statute uses "newspaper"), I would be against that. It would amount to government licensing of the press. Preventing that was one of the key goals of the First Amendment.
I hear you, but there's always a civic moral impact on society, be it via "for-profit" or "nonprofit" enterprise. It's an "externality" in economist lingo. Folks are understandably leery of introducing the civic moral dimension, as we've become so atomized + relativistic in our discourse that we've forgotten fundamental truths we hold to be self-evident. We've left it to judges and courts to discern what's 'right and wrong," even though law and ethics are not always compatible. I believe firmly we can identify core principles that are subject to application, across business categories (have worked decades on this, including affecting the news industry. Did a big project on this at Harvard Divinity School in the mid-90s looking at the spiritual values of CEOs in the news media, Hollywood, and Wall Street.)
"Free speech" as we know is not a license to do anything; Justices Holmes and Stewart wrestled with these questions in different eras. The press contributes to the public interest, rightly understood. Time to focus on that as a governing principle (Newt Minow would agree), and then wrestle with what that means and how it's enhanced. At Harvard, I was part of the Center for Values in Public Life, now non-existent, that addressed these questions from a variety of perspectives. We discovered most folks crave greater knowledge + capability regarding values in public life, but lack the vocabulary, usable knowledge, and outlets for doing achieving said fluency.
BTW, I'm working on a major project to leverage money from portfolios of wealthy tax-exempt institutions toward this cause (among others). The Equity Culture / Civic Fiduciary Action Lab model, initially planted in Boston + Watertown along with Lansing / East Lansing, MI (I'm from Lansing; my mom was a journo just after WWII), aims to mobilize massive pools of financial capital toward public interest outcomes. Would welcome your thoughts as I move forward.
As a matter of right and wrong-- civics and morals-- I think I largely agree with you. But as a matter of law, I don't want the press defined so narrowly. In that realm, I continue to believe that content neutrality is essential.
Insofar as gov't funding is concerned, I hear you.
But what if there were big pools of $$$ fed by rich tax-exempt institutions? Their charter / license to operate is to "advance the public interest," although that's never really defined. The idea of "civic fiduciary obligation" is one that can be anchored in new interpretations of "fiduciary duty and care", akin to work now going on amongst legal scholars regarding the "public fiduciary." Alas, our current interpretations of fiduciary obligation fail to incorporate this public interest obligation — wherein the "beneficiaries" are the general public, not the extant institution. That's cutting edge work, to which I welcome your participation.
The problem with including digital-only outlets is Uncle Phil can put an HTML shingle out and claim to be a journalist. At least running a printing press creates some barrier to entry. In any case, this will help small in-state weekly chains the most.
Thanks, Dick, for the early take on this novel action. Like Jeff, I worry that the news outlets — of which there are many — that rely on freelancers because they do not have the money for staff positions, will be excluded, which seems contrary to the intent of this subsidy. Also, what, to the extent that you may have insight into this, does the regulatory process look like — will the larger legacy organizations such as newspaper trade groups be sending their lobbyists into the EDC, which presumably knows little about the industry? How do the smaller newsrooms get a chance to explain and advocate for themselves?
Thanks, Barbara. On your first point, the statute is quite clear that this is aid to offset salaries, not freelance costs. Any change on that would need to go back to the Legislature.
On the second point, I am sure that there is going to be significant lobbying just ahead-- it's probably already begun. Folks need to get organized for that if they are not already.
Another interesting post, Dick. In other countries anyway, subsidies for the press have a rather worrisome history, to put it mildly...
Thanks, Roger. Yes, that's why I think content neutrality is key.